nykola.com | bothering people since 1981

It is decidedly so. And it is with a great deal of pride that I admit that I can't even remember the quadratic equation but I've had Robert Frost and Edgar Allen Poe memorized for years. On this topic, I will quote extensively. The New York Times reports (reg req.:

Last week, the United States proved, yet again, that its mathematical literacy is abysmal. In a survey by the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development, it ranked 28th out of 40 countries in mathematics, far below Finland and South Korea, and about on a par with Portugal.

The survey tested simple, "everyday" skills like estimating the size of Antarctica or footsteps in the sand. Nonetheless, as in past comparisons, American 15-year-olds did rather better than students in Mexico, Indonesia and South Africa, and substantially worse than those in rich countries, especially Asian ones.

But we mustn't forget that in spite of these facts, we are still better. Let's just continue to recite that to ourselves. We're better we're better we're better we're better.

In his post "If A Train Leaves," fellow blogger Avery Tooley noted some reasons why we lack mathematical aptitude:

Here's my take on the reasons behind our lag: we accept mathematical illiteracy. It's not uncommon to hear people say, "I just don't do math" or "I never was any good at that." And I'm not talking about kids here, I'm talking about adults; not them jokers standin' on the corner, either. I'm talmbout college-edumacated; experts in their fields...will tell you that they aren't good at math and don't fool with it on those grounds. And most of us, even if we don't like it, we'll at least accept it. Now if somebody tried to say that about reading, they'd get blasted out of the water. Mathematics is just as fundamental as reading.

Or is it? It's a safe bet to assume that the Egyptian Africans that built the pyramids weren't exactly dummies. They certainly were smarter than I. Then again, nowadays we have Auto-CAD to do architectural renderings on our behalf. The New York Times continues:

These annual humiliations produce two consistent reactions.
One set of experts grouses that the surveys are unfair: average American students are compared to distant elites; Americans play sports and hold jobs; foreign countries impose national standards while America believes in local school boards.

Another set gloomily predicts that math malaise will ultimately gut the economy, frequently citing an estimate that American businesses waste $30 billion a year on remedial training. (In 1990, the elder President Bush announced an expensive plan to have American students lead the world in math by the year 2000.)

But there is also the Peggy Sue school of thought, which asks: So what?

In all but the most arcane specialties (like teaching math), the need for math has atrophied. Electronic scales can price 4.15 pounds of chicken at $3.79 a pound faster than any butcher. Artillerymen in Iraq don't use slide rules as their counterparts on Iwo Jima did. Cars announce how many miles each gallon gets. Some restaurant bills calculate suggested tips of 15, 18 or 20 percent. Architects and accountants now have spreadsheets for everything from wind stress to foreign tax shelters. The new math is plug-and-play.

True, those calculators and spreadsheets and credit card machines need to be programmed. But, in between bouts of visa restrictions, American universities successfully import thousands of math whizzes each year because jobs await them, and the tiny percentage of American-born students who do Ph.D. work equal the world's best.

In math, as in chess, countries that produce the most grandmasters per capita - like Hungary and Iceland - not only don't rule the world, they don't even rule chess.

This conversation seems a bit chicken and eggish. Although I always found theological error in that "which came first?" scenario. Still, it appears that we Americans need to get our collective beehinds in shape. However, I fear that there is absolutely no motivation to do so. I know I never had any. After all, we're the best.

I'm glad a majority of Americans stink at math and science. I like it and am good at it so I get a job which pays well (law of supply and demand and all that). WOOHOO for me! I get paid to sit around and solve problems and think up new stuff. Can there be a better job in the world?

I've heard that American's dismal performance at math and science is because it isn't taught well. According to NPR's Moring Edition program, the asian countries who do well have a very cohesive National method that starts from a very early age. The US methods are apparently more haphazard.
My guess is that there are also too many distractions that take away from studies, especially for the math and science sujects.

Here's a thought: Video games are getting more complex, both in graphics and in game play. How about designing one that requires math and science skills that higher you go in it?

Well I must announce that I DO 'do math' and love it. (I must say that my inner geek advocates for everyone to visit math throughout their lives.) I also must agree that most Americans don't 'do math' because of lack of necessity, just as with the invention of spell check and grammar programs, spelling and writing skills are less emphasized in this generation’s skill set (see New S.A.T.) . I may be a little paranoid, but I do fear that one day most Americans won’t be able to assist their own children in elementary mathematical skills (though the fact that some can’t assist with their child’s moral skills hasn’t hurt us too much, huh?) Recently, the parents (both professionals) of on of my tutees asked if I would provide them with a ‘cheat’ sheet so they could answer questions in between my lessons with their child. I guess king’s ransom I charge is easier to swallow than admitting that they have no clue how to graph a straight line.

“Do not worry about your problems with mathematics; I assure you mine are far greater.”
--Albert Einstein

Say it Loud: I'm MATH GEEK and I'm Proud!

I pretty much shrugged at math (that is, didn't find it difficult, but it was hardly enthralling either) til it got to the point where I actually had to work at it. That was sometime around grade 13. After that my lazy butt took it as a necessary evil.

I still use a few little tricks I learned to try and do as much in my head as possible without having to resort to a tip-calculator or somesuch. Erry once in a real blue moon, remembering the basics of permutations and combinations calculations comes in handy. That's about it, though.

There prolly is some minimum critical mass of math geeks required for a country to be a playa in this day and age. "Per capita" numbers won't cut it by itself.

But where geniuses go for jobs is a fluid thing. Cobb's already makin his way to China fercryinoutloud. Many more Asians in the future may flock to that power block as well.

It would probably be better in the long term interests of the Empire that the bulk of the necessary critical mass of math gurus be homegrown.

I assume the Times and its readers probably association this stuff with the fact that we are a religious people(those ignorant Christian,etc). Well of course modern mathematics(and science,etc) came of age in Christian culture. I'm a pretty devout Christian. I major in in mathematics and physics Jesus commands us to love God "with all your mind". We need more religious people devoting themselves to these fields. It give glory to God when we study his creation. Of course we need to use Christian principles in these fields (instead of letting science become a religion like it so often does. We need people in there who know that science can't solve all of man's problem. Only Jesus Christ can.

As a poor pathetic excuse for an AutoCAD user (I "do" math way better than I "do" AutoCAD) -- I have to tell you, AutoCAD doesn't do renderings. The person *using* AutoCAD does the renderings. It's not a magic program that reads our thoughts and plots them out five minutes later. Anyone who can master this &^$#! program gets the title of "genius" in my book. Because it's DARN DIFFICULT.

(Oh, and if you really wanted to be picky, you use AutoCAD for drawings, and another program like 3D StudioMax for the actual renderings.)

As for calculating wind stress, or load capacity...that's usually done by an engineer, not the architect. And someone had to design that spreadsheet -- usually another engineer. Plug & play math? Hardly. If that were the case, even *I* would be able to figure it out instead of stressing over it the way I do. Sigh...